Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Johnson v. Eli Lilly and Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1983)
- Stephens v. Snyder Clinic Ass'n (Kan. 1981)
- Rockwell v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Co. (District Court, N.D. New York 1981)
- Piracci Construction Co. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- Schulman Investment Co. v. Olin Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
- Holdridge v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara (District Court, N.D. New York 1977)
- Miniero v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 2007)
- Barresi v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Consorti v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (N.Y. 1995)
- Snyder v. Town Insulation, Inc. (N.Y. 1993)
- Admire Bank & Trust v. City of Emporia (Kan. 1992)
- Cranesville Block Co. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Tomlinson v. Celotex Corp. (Kan. 1989)
- Orvil T. Braswell and Parlee K. Braswell v. Flintkote Mines, Ltd. (7th Cir. 1984)
- Fleishman v. Lilly (N.Y. 1984)
- Muller v. Sturman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Clark v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- Paul v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that the Statute of Limitations commenced to run in 1957, when he first was able to discover an injury caused by a 1944 injection of a carcinogenic substance, and that a holding by this court as a matter of law that the actionable injury was sustained prior to that time would deprive appellant of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that in an action for personal injuries caused by negligence the cause of action accrues and the Statute of Limitations commences to run when the negligence produces injury, and that the injury occurred when the harmful substance first acted upon appellant’s body, at or about the time of injection in 1944, appellant’s lack of knowledge notwithstanding. [See 12 N Y 2d 212.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.